Say it isn't so....Inclusive on USEF Drug List

[skydy]

I can’t speak for exhibitors. I haven’t done H/Js for eons, though I do still care about them.

Shows with large prize money and/or big trainer prestige on the line (the “trainer of the Champion Open Hunter at Devon, WIHS, WEF” advertising resume ) could be the places start, the places to test.
Champion and Reserve? Governing bodies are there for the express purpose of governing aren’t they? The welfare of the horse is supposed to be important isn’t it?

Honestly, I think USEF and USHJA need to crack down. Prioritize their use of the funds available to them. Stop making excuses and DO something. The injection rule is a start. Rules are fine and there are plenty of them. Unfortunately, enforcement is necessary to keep people from breaking them.

Of course this may not be possible given the status quo.

When the people who are in governance (and thus are making the rules) and/or training are also competing and sometimes being caught violating the rules themselves, the problem may be so entrenched that there is no hope. I do hope that this isn’t the case.

As for being able to spot a drugged horse? I sure can’t unless I am standing right next to it, it’s a horse I’ve known very well (and close up as in grooming) for years and, actually, my first thought would go to illness before drugs.

[bjd2013]

[QUOTE=m&m;8273300]
Explain?[/QUOTE]

They have banned and controlled substances. Banned are obviously not allowed in horses competing at FEI events, and controlled is acknowledge as therapeutic for horses but not allowed during events since they can be abused. So basically the horses aren’t allowed to show on anything, unlike USEF.

[JustJump]

[QUOTE=m&m;8271885]
I think it could be a good idea to have any one of several illegal substances on hand for baby horse’s first show. Maybe baby horse is going to freak out so badly that someone is going to get hurt. But as someone above said, that’s when you take baby horse out for a trial run - not when you are planning on taking baby horse into the show ring. Or you scratch.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, a horse that is likely to ‘freak out so badly that someone is going to get hurt’ is not ready for his first show.

Baby horse training is a specialty, that done well, PREPARES the youngsters for a show experience. Seamlessly. Without the use of ‘calming’ agents.

[janedoe726]

So I’ve been out of the game for a really long time, but I just came across this (completely unrelated to this discussion). I had no clue that Ambien is GABA, the substance these horses are testing positive for. Are you serious? Have these people ever taken Ambien? Who in their right mind would give this to a 1500+ pound animal then get on it? Even a small dose blows my mind. Color me clueless! :eek:

http://products.sanofi.us/ambien/ambien.pdf

[Montanas_Girl]

[QUOTE=RugBug;8271905]
I have never experienced a local “yeehaw” show that even gets close to the chaos of an A show…and I’ve been to a lot of yeehaws…even run one myself. They are good for getting the horse out, around different jumps, in a warm up…but not good for chaos. [/QUOTE]

Then you haven’t been to enough country fair shows. Nothing acclimates a horse to insanity quite as quickly as an “exotic animal” petting zoo, a Ferris Wheel, and a demolition derby all in the same night…

[poltroon]

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8273260]
Back when I was a steward, testing was supposed to be random. And, officially, an official of the show was not supposed to say anything (on the chance that an official had it in for an exhibitor and could get certain horses tested because of the animus between the 2 people.). However, there were ways around it (seeming innocent comment when in hearing range of a tester).

Technically, a tester has a list of horses in each class to be tested: 2nd and 5th class 111. First and 3rd in class 222. The choices of horses is random by design.

For those who are calling for more testing, how much would each of you be willing to pay for a substantial increase in numbers?[/QUOTE]

I think the random draw was a great idea once upon a time. But, I think at this point, it might make more sense to concentrate at least some of the budget on the winning horses, at least to the point that every horse that’s in contention for a HOTY award is going to end up tested once a year, and the winners at the very most important events like pony finals are tested.

If someone never wins and they’re using forbidden substances, they won’t be emulated. The problem is isolated. When someone wins and is using a questionable substance, it’s going to spread (whether that substance is actually a factor in their success or not). I think it would help for people to know that if they are successful, they will have to test clean.

As for the money: yep, this is a problem, and it’s something the membership doesn’t understand well. Getting more information out there about what the tests cost and how many are done would seem helpful.

For all the handwringing, the number of positive tests is a small subset of those tested. So, it is apparently possible to compete without mixing up the supplement buckets or accidentally blowing cocaine in your horse’s nose, etc.

[juststartingout]

[QUOTE=hype;8273123]
There are a lot of things that would need to change to clean up the sport but the number one thing to do is to make the penalties so great that it really isn’t worth it to take the gamble.

What if the said horse who was drugged was out for a year regardless of who owned it? Ditto with the rider and the trainer? Certainly makes things much more risky. A year suspension can end a junior’s career prematurely, can ruin a trainer’s business and can make a horse much less valuable. Money talks…

There are always people who will consider the risk/reward before they do anything.

Another thought is to have the champion and reserve tested for drugs. Do you think that will deter people? I do. What about in bigger money classes testing the top 5 or top 10 in huge classes? That would deter a lot of people from attempting to drug their horses.

You wouldn’t have to test Ch/Res for every division. That would be a random draw with which divisions were to be tested once the testers go to the horse show grounds. I’d also say that there should be some discretion as to additional testing by the steward etc if a horse looks drugged.

Even with very strict penalties, you will still have people a step ahead of the game. Using the latest and greatest before there is a reliable test for it but at least there would be some “bite” to a drug infraction.[/QUOTE]

Another voice here calling for setting the horse down – really that is the logical and significant consequence of testing positive. If the horse - particularly a top horse - is set down for a significant period of time it affects everyone associated with the horse (continue to set down the people too if desired, but there is always another trainer or rider who can take over)

To those who suggest it might interfere with sales or place an unfair burden on purchasers who did not know – an acceptable waiver of the set down for a buyer might be to produce a clean drug screen from their pre-purchase exam.

Rules ought to be crafted to obtain the best result as much as possible – not because they are easy to enforce or workable in the short term.

[Sticky_Situation]

Rather than suspending the horse itself, as that could cause it to be complicated if the horse is sold prior to the test coming back positive, why not suspend all the connections that were involved in showing the horse at the time of the positive test … Trainer, owner, and rider?

If a big name, big money owner risks being unable to compete any of their horses for a period of time in the event of a positive test, they might think twice before agreeing to allow their horses to receive questionable substances – or using a trainer that keeps them in the dark.

$300 and returning some ribbons and prize money means essentially nothing to anyone who can afford to keep a horse competing on the A circuit.

Suspending the rider for an extended period of time is a little more complicated, because sometimes the rider may be a catch rider or a younger child who has no knowledge of what the horse may have been given, but if there is a risk of receiving even a relatively short suspension maybe there will be some pressure from the riders to the trainers to ensure the horses are clean, and people will be less reluctant to ride for trainers who are known for using chemical assistance.

[juststartingout]

[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8273631]
Rather than suspending the horse itself, as that could cause it to be complicated if the horse is sold prior to the test coming back positive, why not suspend all the connections that were involved in showing the horse at the time of the positive test … Trainer, owner, and rider?

If a big name, big money owner risks being unable to compete any of their horses for a period of time in the event of a positive test, they might think twice before agreeing to allow their horses to receive questionable substances – or using a trainer that keeps them in the dark.

$300 and returning some ribbons and prize money means essentially nothing to anyone who can afford to keep a horse competing on the A circuit.

Suspending the rider for an extended period of time is a little more complicated, because sometimes the rider may be a catch rider or a younger child who has no knowledge of what the horse may have been given, but if there is a risk of receiving even a relatively short suspension maybe there will be some pressure from the riders to the trainers to ensure the horses are clean, and people will be less reluctant to ride for trainers who are known for using chemical assistance.[/QUOTE]

Honestly – there are lots of ways to protect a bona fide purchaser (a purchaser UNRELATED to the current ownertrainer/rider) without knowledge – evidence of a clean pre-purchase blood test is a simple one.

Setting the rider and trainer down has limited effect – it does not impact the owner and the horse can be trained and ridden by someone else. If the offense is the drugging of the particular horse then it is the horse as well as the people involved that ought to be set down.

[vxf111]

You could also have a rule that the horse is set down unless it was sold and USEF recorded with the new owner PRIOR to the results of the blood test being known. That protects an unwitting buyer but not someone who is going to shell game the horse around to friends to outwit the rules.

[Sticky_Situation]

[QUOTE=juststartingout;8273636]
Honestly – there are lots of ways to protect a bona fide purchaser (a purchaser UNRELATED to the current ownertrainer/rider) without knowledge – evidence of a clean pre-purchase blood test is a simple one.

Setting the rider and trainer down has limited effect – it does not impact the owner and the horse can be trained and ridden by someone else. If the offense is the drugging of the particular horse then it is the horse as well as the people involved that ought to be set down.[/QUOTE]

So why not suspend the owner from showing ANY horses, not just the one with the positive test, for a period of time?

I do realize the more than likely suspending the trainer will just lead to business as usual with somebody else signing the entry forms as it does now, but it at least might make people think twice …

In the case of big name owners with many horses and big name show barns, I don’t think just suspending one horse for a while is going to be all that big of a deal.

[Ghazzu]

[QUOTE=juststartingout;8273567]
Another voice here calling for setting the horse down – really that is the logical and significant consequence of testing positive. If the horse - particularly a top horse - is set down for a significant period of time it affects everyone associated with the horse (continue to set down the people too if desired, but there is always another trainer or rider who can take over)

To those who suggest it might interfere with sales or place an unfair burden on purchasers who did not know – an acceptable waiver of the set down for a buyer might be to produce a clean drug screen from their pre-purchase exam.

Rules ought to be crafted to obtain the best result as much as possible – not because they are easy to enforce or workable in the short term.[/QUOTE]

Altenatively, a sales contract could have a clause in which the seller affirms that the horse has no pending drug test results, or if pending, swears they’ll be clean, with an exceedingly stiff penalty of refund of a big chunk of the purchase price should the test result in a suspension of the horse.

[Peggy]

Buyer could also ask seller if the horse had been tested and was awaiting results or even include appropriate language in the sale or lease contract that the horse had not been tested. The seller should know, or be told in the case of an agent, that the horse was tested. It’s not as if USEF veterinarians sneak around the stabling at night to do the testing and the first you hear about the horse being tested is if there is a penalty.

[vxf111]

Expecting people to alter the terms of a private sale contract might be less realistic than writing a rule/penalty that has a contingency plan for a sold horse. Just being realistic here. Many people don’t write sales contracts and even though who do often fail to consider contingencies like this.

[vineyridge]

Got a dumb question. If someone is worried about potential ulcers from showing, why not just give Ulcergard instead of a calming supplement?

[Ghazzu]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8273688]
Got a dumb question. If someone is worried about potential ulcers from showing, why not just give Ulcergard instead of a calming supplement?[/QUOTE]

Well, duh, because something being sold as a calmative is far more likely to work on ulcers than an FDA-approved product which has undergone clinical trials to prove safety and efficacy.

[caballogurl]

[QUOTE=juststartingout;8273636]
Honestly – there are lots of ways to protect a bona fide purchaser (a purchaser UNRELATED to the current ownertrainer/rider) without knowledge – evidence of a clean pre-purchase blood test is a simple one.

Setting the rider and trainer down has limited effect – it does not impact the owner and the horse can be trained and ridden by someone else. If the offense is the drugging of the particular horse then it is the horse as well as the people involved that ought to be set down.[/QUOTE]

Agreed - the horse should be suspended. Look at how it is done at the FEI level. The current sanctions are almost meaningless to the riders and owner, and most of the “trainers” on the entries forms are assistants or barn managers, not the actual person sitting ring side.

[caballogurl]

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8273260]
For those who are calling for more testing, how much would each of you be willing to pay for a substantial increase in numbers?[/QUOTE]

I just looked at a recent entry blank and the USEF drug fee was $8 and CDFA drug fee is $5. Even if we quadrupled the USEF drug fee to a whopping $32…that is nothing in comparison to what the average competitor spends to compete on the A circuit.

I am not so much worried about the cost because there are creative ways to control the cost and like another poster suggested maybe not test every division but randomly test 50% of all champions/reserves and then test all winners of classes with prize money over $5k. Also, why can’t a steward or a judge suggest testing a horse they suspect is drugged? To me that is ludicrous. If people are worried about abuses (ie a steward has a person vendetta against trainer A), who cares if your horse gets tested if you are not breaking the rules. I just think that there will be significant push back from those in power to increasing the amount of testing and the penalties, and I am skeptical if USEF will ever increase penalties and/or the amount of testing. But I would personally have no problem spending an extra $25 a show to clean up the sport. Also, any penalties could pay for additional testing.

[JenEM]

@caballogurl;8273711

I just looked at a recent entry blank and the USEF drug fee was $8 and CDFA drug fee is $5. Even if we quadrupled the USEF drug fee to a whopping $32…that is nothing in comparison to what the average competitor spends to compete on the A circuit.

But that drug fee isn’t a hunter-specific fee. That’s for all USEF shows; I pay the same amount for a licensed Dressage show as I do for Hunters. And it’s not just A circuit riders paying that fee, it’s also riders doing the few B/C shows that are still out there, struggling to fill, and one-day Dressage shows, and Eventing. And presumably also things like Arabians and Driving, but I’ve never looked at their prizelists, so I’d be speculating. While every discipline certainly has its issues, quadrupling the USEF drug fee to allow increased testing of Hunters doesn’t seem fair to the other disciplines that make up USEF.

I don’t mind paying the drug fee as is, and in theory the call for increased testing is great. Even the testing of horses that fall, perhaps using the same definition Eventing has for Fall of Horse (because they all trip at some point, or bobble, but if both hip and shoulder hit the ground, yes, I do think that’s worth some followup), sounds great. But to do it, you’d have to have testers at every show, all year long, to ensure that there was the ability to do that. And the cost of that just seems astronomical.

[Metropolitan]

If/as USEF increases the stakes for positive tests, they need to make sure their testing processes and benchmarks are rock solid and supported by rigorous science.